The present chapter strives to elaborate simple heuristics that might further the elaboration of p-solutions or p-resolutions of p-inconsistencies. We will take Moravcsik’s () typology of the treatment of conflicts as our starting point and we will attempt to integrate it into the p-model. After the brief Introduction (), inwe will present the examples given in Moravcsik (). Starting from her analyses, we will re-analyse the examples with the help of the p-model’s categories and will provide a new approach to the resolution strategies. Finally, in , we will summarise the main components of the heuristics we have revealed.

of the final chapter recapitulates the Main Problem, its subdivision into the Problems (P1)–(P8), and motivates the steps that lead from the solution of one problem to raising and solving the next one. In this way, the reader may get a comprehensive look at our whole line of reasoning.infers our solution to the Main Problem from the solutions of the Problems (P1)–(P8), highlights the way in which the aims of the book have been reached, and paves the way for future research.

The Introduction defines the aims of the book and raises the problems it will deal with. The first aim is that of the philosopher of linguistics, namely, to reveal basic characteristics of linguistic theory formation that have been unknown so far and would thus clarify important foundational issues. Second, the book also aims to show how our metatheoretical analyses will provide findings that are capable of substantially improving the practice of problem solving in theoretical linguistics. This aim is that of the linguist – however, supported and furthered by the metatheoretical findings of the philosopher of linguistics. In order to reach both aims, the book tackles the problem of how inconsistencies emerge in linguistic theorising, under what conditions they can be tolerated, and how they can be resolved. Since this Main Problem is very complex, we divide it into eight more easily accessible sub-problems, whose solution will in the long run lead, step by step, to the solution of our Main Problem.

The present chapter is devoted to the problem of how the limits of the paraconsistent treatment of inconsistency can be transgressed.anticipates some basic properties of the p-model. In , we will first offer a brief survey of the structure, the function, and the treatment of inconsistencies in Baltin’s () paper with respect to different analyses of degree word complement clauses. In , we will apply the paraconsistent logic introduced into Baltin’s argumentation. We will see, however, that this result is not satisfactory, because paraconsistent logic cannot grasp the process of the continuous emergence and resolution of inconsistencies. Consequently, in , we will briefly present the central terms and tenets of the p-model. In , we will apply this finding to the reconstruction of Baltin’s () argumentation, and into another case study on that of Zubizarreta (). Finally, in , we will summarise our solution to the problem raised.